Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INgrooves

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INgrooves[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a promotion for the company and written as an "advertisement". It does not belong in Wikipedia. see: WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING Tyros1972 Talk 05:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may well be in need of a clean-up but that's not really a reason for deletion. There are a few articles about the company and already listed as citations for the article on the company's founder, Robb McDaniels. Beyond those there are a few GoogleNews hits, though some are passing mentions and plenty of music industry magazine sources. I'd be inclined to think is passes WP:CORPDEPTH without too much problem, though the article absolutely needs work. Stalwart111 06:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I participated in the recent DRV discussion where I suggested the subject might struggle to survive an AFD nomination. Having now done a proper search, I'm forced to concede I was probably wrong. Stalwart111 07:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:BEFORE failure. I should add that the "promotion/ advertisement" issues claimed by the nominator are based on nothing, as the article is absolutely neutral and it avoids any peacockery. Cavarrone 06:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.